2026:CGHC:9435-DB NAFR ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR WA No. 177 of 2026 CHANDRA

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur- 492002 Chhattisgarh

2 - The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources And Ground Water Survey Division, Civil Lines, Sihawa Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur C.G.

3 - The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Balod, District-Balod Chhattisgarh

4 - The Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Durg-

491001 Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus Vikesh Gajendra S/o. Late J.R. Gajendra Aged About 36 Years Employed As Assistant Grade-Iii, O/o Sub-Divisional Officer, Water Resources Sub-Division No.1, Adma Bandh, Balod-491226, District-

Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For State/Appellants : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. Adv. General For Respondent : Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

24.02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants as well as Mr. B.P. Rao, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent on I.A.

No.01 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of

305 days in preferring the instant appeal.

2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/appellants submits that the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order on 20.02.2025 in WPS No. 6410 of 2016. Thereafter, appellants/State authorities through the Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Reservoir Project, WRD, Raipur had sought an opinion from the office of the Advocate General vide letter dated 01.05.2025. Pursuant thereto, the Office of the Advocate General, vide its letter dated 15-28.05.2025, accorded opinion for filing the appeal. Subsequently, a proposal was forwarded to the Law and Legislative Affairs Department through the Water Resources Department for grant of sanction and accordingly, sanction for filing the appeal was granted on 14.01.2026. Thereafter, the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) was appointed by the Water Resources Department vide order dated 16.01.2026, and the present appeal has thereafter been drafted and filed before this Hon’ble Court.

3. It has been contended that the State, after obtaining necessary documents and information with respect to the case, faced delay due to compliance with various departmental formalities and the functioning of Government machinery, as the State Government is a multi-functional body and, at times, completion of departmental formalities takes unexpectedly long time. Therefore, in certain cases, the State is prevented from filing proceedings within the prescribed period of limitation, which is bona fide and not deliberate. The instant appeal has, therefore, been filed with a delay of 305 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao reported in (2005) 3 SCC 372, in support of the submissions. Accordingly, learned State counsel prays that the delay of 305 days in preferring the appeal may be condoned.

4. The question for determination before this Court is whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (i.e. Act 9 of 1908 i.e. the old Limitation Act) would apply to an application for condonation of delay.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563, has dealt with the limitation issue and held as under:-

“27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with c